i am sorry anyone who say's nolan films are not real super hero films are very closeminded and only view super hero films in 1 way

batman has no super powers and neither does majority of his villains

joker
two face
penguin
catwoman
riddler
etc.

erhm no... you might as well call james bond a superhero...

superhero imo .... = costumed or mutated crime fighter

supervillain = costumed/or mutated villain

by your logic... Rambo, Jackie Chan, and James Bond are superheroes... when in reality.. they're more "action heroes" there's a difference. Superheroes make the action and situations dive more into sci-fi and fantasy.

imo the only things that differ from nolan's batman, and james bond... are a costume. I think it takes a little bit more than that to make it more of a "superhero film"

$620M and 75% RT rating =/= universally panned. Cap and Thor, whatever gripes people have for them, were much better received, critically and financially, than Fox' FF movies. I don't think there are may who would disagree with that.

If Fox makes a great FF film, I'll gladly acknowledge it, but they haven't. They've made good X-Men films (X1, X2, First Class), and I've acknowledged those, but they screwed up big time with FF. Fox is 0/2 with FF, so I think I'm justified in my wanting the rights to revert.

As low as Fox and Sony have set the bar with their failed films such as X-3, Daredevil, Elektra, FF, FF2, Wolverine, Spider-man 3, Ghost Ridder and GR 2. Why even entertain this nonsense...? None of Marvels worse films compare to any of those films mentioned. So as it stands. Sony is 3 out 6,(7 if you include Man Thing) Fox is 3 out of 9 and Marvel is 6 out of 6!

Let them grasp at straws all they want. Marvel hasn't had to consider rebooting any of their franchises due to poor results thus far, so tell them to save it. Marvel Studios is currently KING!

As low as Sony has set the bar with their failed films X-3, Daredevil, Elektra, FF, FF2, Wolverine, Spider-man 3, Ghost Ridder and GR 2. Why even entertain this nonsense...? None of Marvels worse films compare to any of those films mentioned. So as it stands. Sony is 3 out 6,(7 if you include Man Thing) Fox is 3 out of 9 and Marvel is 6 out of 6!

Let them grasp at straws all they want. Marvel hasn't had to consider rebooting any of their franchises due to poor results thus far, so tell them to save it. Marvel Studios is currently KING!

by your logic... Rambo, Jackie Chan, and James Bond are superheroes... when in reality.. they're more "action heroes" there's a difference. Superheroes make the action and situations dive more into sci-fi and fantasy.

imo the only things that differ from nolan's batman, and james bond... are a costume. I think it takes a little bit more than that to make it more of a "superhero film"

So, your definition of a superhero is a costumed crimefighter. But Batman wearing a costume and fighting crime isn't enough to be a superhero?

Plus, a Batman similar to this, fighting normal criminals with just his wits and gadgets helped define superheroes after he was created. It was easily the second biggest influence on the genre besides the big blue guy who showed up the year before. The reason Batman is a superhero and James Bond, Rambo, and Jackie Chan (?) aren't superheroes is because they weren't created as superheroes.

But all that aside, it's a movie starring Batman. A superhero. That makes it a superhero movie. There's no checklist that says a movie needs "this, this, and that" to be a superhero movie. There's one item on that list, "Have a superhero in it."

So, your definition of a superhero is a costumed crimefighter. But Batman wearing a costume and fighting crime isn't enough to be a superhero?

Plus, a Batman similar to this, fighting normal criminals with just his wits and gadgets helped define superheroes after he was created. It was easily the second biggest influence on the genre besides the big blue guy who showed up the year before. The reason Batman is a superhero and James Bond, Rambo, and Jackie Chan (?) aren't superheroes is because they weren't created as superheroes.

But all that aside, it's a movie starring Batman. A superhero. That makes it a superhero movie.

oh lord.. you're only concentrating on one thing that i'm saying...

RE-READ

Quote:

i don't really want "tdk" for my marvel films... story telling can be great, for sure. but, I also like a little bit of fantasy. The trick imo about comic book films is making the viewer believe in these over the top, fantastical things.. and bringing their world to ours in a way where again, it's believable.

Nolan took batman and his villains and made them believable in our world, rather than letting us believe that world could exist.

i'm commenting on NOLAN'S FILMS

not batman himself.

For me... batman (in the comics) is MOST CERTAINLY a superhero (no doubt about that) But the only "truly" fantastical thing to occur imo in the nolan films was basically Dent surviving his burns.....

I like my batman in a world where I can easily see Clay-face, Ivy, Man-Bat, and Freeze... being who they are. Not some watered down psuedo versions of them just to fit into "our" reality. TDK is still a superhero film... but it's just barely. Lose the suits, and it's just an action/crime/thriller....

I sorta think Nolan "failed" at making a "superhero film", because he took the superhero, out of the genre and put it into something else. Were they great films? sure, no doubt about that.. but i prefer believing the unbelievable in my superhero movies.

It's about transporting me somewhere else when watching a film... and making me believe that it could be real... (like the harry potter films), not so much taking these characters and restricting them to "real world" reality laws.

If they make another FF movie, they will have to do something to make Dr. Doom come off as the great villain he is the comics. At this point, most movie super villains are better then movie Doom, including guys who are kinda obscure in the comics, like William Stryker and Obadiah Stane.

In a FF movie they will either have to have a very impressive Dr. Doom as the main villain or have Dr. Doom be a growing threat in the back ground. If they do the later, they will have find some other compelling villain to be the main threat of the movie. If they go with someone like Mole Man, he will have to be far more compelling in the movie then he normally is the comics.

If they make another FF movie, they will have to do something to make Dr. Doom come off as the great villain he is the comics. At this point, most movie super villains are better then movie Doom, including guys who are kinda obscure in the comics, like William Stryker and Obadiah Stane.

In a FF movie they will either have to have a very impressive Dr. Doom as the main villain or have Dr. Doom be a growing threat in the back ground. If they do the later, they will have find some other compelling villain to be the main threat of the movie. If they go with someone like Mole Man, he will have to be far more compelling in the movie then he normally is the comics.

My money is on them giving us someone uninteresting like Moleman or The Puppet Master. Then Showing the main villain in the final scene or closing credits ala Avengers, Amazing Spider-man, Green Lantern or Batman Begins.

But if they were really serious they'd give us FF vs the Frightful Four with Doom as a cliffhanger.

Can Fox afford to use the Mole Man though, while leaving Doom for the sequel? If the first reboot is not successful enough, they'll not even get to Doom. It's a different matter for Marvel to do that. But for Fox to do that now, and to release it in 2015 when there's The Avengers, Star Wars Ep 7 and Justice League, that just isn't keeping up with the big leagues. They have to up their game otherwise they'll have another flop on their hands. What's the point of making an FF movie just to be a flop? Might as well give it back to Marvel.

__________________

Quote:

Anne Hathaway: "You did not just ask me that!! What a forward young man you are!!! My goodness!!"

Can Fox afford to use the Mole Man though, while leaving Doom for the sequel? If the first reboot is not successful enough, they'll not even get to Doom. It's a different matter for Marvel to do that. But for Fox to do that now, and to release it in 2015 when there's The Avengers, Star Wars Ep 7 and Justice League, that just isn't keeping up with the big leagues. They have to up their game otherwise they'll have another flop on their hands. What's the point of making an FF movie just to be a flop? Might as well give it back to Marvel.

I've been asking that same question for... Which is why this reboot and the supposed shared universe with FF and the X-Men is completely ridiculous and so typical Fox

how about you actually talk about this reboot and not your imaginary what if scenarios

josh trank is directing and it is at fox talk about that

this is the fox reboot thread btw go to marvel get rights back thread if you want to talk about that

Huh?? Let me know when you want to start making sense..

Its not dreaming.. Its good business

1) This is about the FF reboot and the needless challenge it faces because of bad businessmen who want to horde rights to their detriment and not even you merry Fox-men can save their eventual flop in 2015

2) Marvel shouldn't only get the rights back. It should be given with a deal similar to Robopocalypse as far as shared production and distribution with them established in the continuity of the MCU and not X-Universe.

Like I said. After the BO losses it'll be like they purchased the FF all over again. I'll laugh first (at Fox) then cry for FF then laugh again at the Fox-men in which just like the election campaign managers who told Romney they were ahead in the Polls only to lose badly. If Fox listens to the likes of you. They will lose badly. And Jeremy Slater is writing the script.. Um WHO??? LOL!!!

Calling people that was not meant as a good thing for people to start doing.

People are allowed to like something you don't, or dislike something you like, and to have an opinion that differs from yours without being called names meant to be derogatory towards them.

Oh, I got it in which I followed it with saying that there was no disrespect. I realize perceived name calling has been a sore issue (as you can see from my join date I've seen it all) since "Spidermanhypes" inception. But I try to reason and even agree sometimes to the facts on merits of the films. And very true. I have the right to like the movie Gigli. That doesn't mean it was a good movie and the average person would wonder what the heck am I thinking that I consider that is a great movie.

I mean some actually take offense to being called a Fanboy.. Its just a more widely used term